被忽视和动力不足:一项元研究,解决放射组学预测模型中二元结果的样本量。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0
Jingyu Zhong, Xianwei Liu, Junjie Lu, Jiarui Yang, Guangcheng Zhang, Shiqi Mao, Haoda Chen, Qian Yin, Qingqing Cen, Run Jiang, Yang Song, Minda Lu, Jingshen Chu, Yue Xing, Yangfan Hu, Defang Ding, Xiang Ge, Huan Zhang, Weiwu Yao
{"title":"被忽视和动力不足:一项元研究,解决放射组学预测模型中二元结果的样本量。","authors":"Jingyu Zhong, Xianwei Liu, Junjie Lu, Jiarui Yang, Guangcheng Zhang, Shiqi Mao, Haoda Chen, Qian Yin, Qingqing Cen, Run Jiang, Yang Song, Minda Lu, Jingshen Chu, Yue Xing, Yangfan Hu, Defang Ding, Xiang Ge, Huan Zhang, Weiwu Yao","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate how studies determine the sample size when developing radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes, and whether the sample size meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified radiomics studies that were published from 01 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 in seven leading peer-reviewed radiological journals. We reviewed the sample size justification methods, and actual sample size used. We calculated and compared the actual sample size used to the estimates obtained by using three established criteria proposed by Riley et al. We investigated which characteristics factors were associated with the sufficient sample size that meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria proposed by Riley et al. RESULTS: We included 116 studies. Eleven out of one hundred sixteen studies justified the sample size, in which 6/11 performed a priori sample size calculation. The median (first and third quartile, Q1, Q3) of the total sample size is 223 (130, 463), and those of sample size for training are 150 (90, 288). The median (Q1, Q3) difference between total sample size and minimum sample size according to established criteria are -100 (-216, 183), and those differences between total sample size and a more restrictive approach based on established criteria are -268 (-427, -157). The presence of external testing and the specialty of the topic were associated with sufficient sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiomics studies are often designed without sample size justification, whose sample size may be too small to avoid overfitting. Sample size justification is encouraged when developing a radiomics model.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Sample size justification is critical to help minimize overfitting in developing a radiomics model, but is overlooked and underpowered in radiomics research. Findings Few of the radiomics models justified, calculated, or reported their sample size, and most of them did not meet the recent formal sample size criteria. Clinical relevance Radiomics models are often designed without sample size justification. Consequently, many models are too small to avoid overfitting. It should be encouraged to justify, perform, and report the considerations on sample size when developing radiomics models.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1146-1156"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overlooked and underpowered: a meta-research addressing sample size in radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Jingyu Zhong, Xianwei Liu, Junjie Lu, Jiarui Yang, Guangcheng Zhang, Shiqi Mao, Haoda Chen, Qian Yin, Qingqing Cen, Run Jiang, Yang Song, Minda Lu, Jingshen Chu, Yue Xing, Yangfan Hu, Defang Ding, Xiang Ge, Huan Zhang, Weiwu Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate how studies determine the sample size when developing radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes, and whether the sample size meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified radiomics studies that were published from 01 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 in seven leading peer-reviewed radiological journals. We reviewed the sample size justification methods, and actual sample size used. We calculated and compared the actual sample size used to the estimates obtained by using three established criteria proposed by Riley et al. We investigated which characteristics factors were associated with the sufficient sample size that meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria proposed by Riley et al. RESULTS: We included 116 studies. Eleven out of one hundred sixteen studies justified the sample size, in which 6/11 performed a priori sample size calculation. The median (first and third quartile, Q1, Q3) of the total sample size is 223 (130, 463), and those of sample size for training are 150 (90, 288). The median (Q1, Q3) difference between total sample size and minimum sample size according to established criteria are -100 (-216, 183), and those differences between total sample size and a more restrictive approach based on established criteria are -268 (-427, -157). The presence of external testing and the specialty of the topic were associated with sufficient sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiomics studies are often designed without sample size justification, whose sample size may be too small to avoid overfitting. Sample size justification is encouraged when developing a radiomics model.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Sample size justification is critical to help minimize overfitting in developing a radiomics model, but is overlooked and underpowered in radiomics research. Findings Few of the radiomics models justified, calculated, or reported their sample size, and most of them did not meet the recent formal sample size criteria. Clinical relevance Radiomics models are often designed without sample size justification. Consequently, many models are too small to avoid overfitting. It should be encouraged to justify, perform, and report the considerations on sample size when developing radiomics models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1146-1156\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11835977/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨研究在建立二元预后的放射组学预测模型时如何确定样本量,以及样本量是否符合使用既定标准获得的估计值。方法:我们选取了从2023年1月1日至2023年12月31日在7个领先的同行评审放射学期刊上发表的放射组学研究。我们回顾了样本量的论证方法,以及实际使用的样本量。我们计算了实际样本量,并将其与使用Riley等人提出的三个既定标准获得的估计值进行了比较。我们调查了哪些特征因素与足够的样本量相关,满足使用Riley等人提出的既定标准获得的估计。结果:我们纳入了116项研究。116项研究中有11项证明了样本量,其中6/11进行了先验样本量计算。总样本量的中位数(第一、第三四分位数,Q1、Q3)为223(130、463),训练样本量的中位数为150(90、288)。根据既定标准,总样本量与最小样本量之间的中位数(Q1, Q3)差异为-100(-216,183),总样本量与基于既定标准的更严格的方法之间的差异为-268(-427,-157)。外部测试的存在和主题的特殊性与足够的样本量有关。结论:放射组学研究的设计往往没有样本量的理由,其样本量可能太小,以避免过拟合。在开发放射组学模型时,鼓励对样本量进行论证。在开发放射组学模型时,样本量论证对于帮助最小化过拟合至关重要,但在放射组学研究中却被忽视和缺乏动力。很少有放射组学模型证明、计算或报告其样本量,而且大多数模型不符合最近正式的样本量标准。临床相关性放射组学模型的设计往往没有样本量的理由。因此,许多模型太小,无法避免过拟合。在开发放射组学模型时,应该鼓励对样本量的考虑进行论证、执行和报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Overlooked and underpowered: a meta-research addressing sample size in radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes.

Objectives: To investigate how studies determine the sample size when developing radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes, and whether the sample size meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria.

Methods: We identified radiomics studies that were published from 01 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 in seven leading peer-reviewed radiological journals. We reviewed the sample size justification methods, and actual sample size used. We calculated and compared the actual sample size used to the estimates obtained by using three established criteria proposed by Riley et al. We investigated which characteristics factors were associated with the sufficient sample size that meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria proposed by Riley et al. RESULTS: We included 116 studies. Eleven out of one hundred sixteen studies justified the sample size, in which 6/11 performed a priori sample size calculation. The median (first and third quartile, Q1, Q3) of the total sample size is 223 (130, 463), and those of sample size for training are 150 (90, 288). The median (Q1, Q3) difference between total sample size and minimum sample size according to established criteria are -100 (-216, 183), and those differences between total sample size and a more restrictive approach based on established criteria are -268 (-427, -157). The presence of external testing and the specialty of the topic were associated with sufficient sample size.

Conclusion: Radiomics studies are often designed without sample size justification, whose sample size may be too small to avoid overfitting. Sample size justification is encouraged when developing a radiomics model.

Key points: Question Sample size justification is critical to help minimize overfitting in developing a radiomics model, but is overlooked and underpowered in radiomics research. Findings Few of the radiomics models justified, calculated, or reported their sample size, and most of them did not meet the recent formal sample size criteria. Clinical relevance Radiomics models are often designed without sample size justification. Consequently, many models are too small to avoid overfitting. It should be encouraged to justify, perform, and report the considerations on sample size when developing radiomics models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Diagnostic MRI for deep pelvic endometriosis: towards a standardized protocol? Female interns are not choosing radiology as a career-national survey providing insights into gender imbalance. Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Multiparametric MRI-based VI-RADS: can it predict 1- to 5-year recurrence of bladder cancer? Prediction models for differentiating benign from malignant liver lesions based on multiparametric dual-energy non-contrast CT. Predictive markers for head and neck cancer treatment response: T1rho imaging in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1